Hey RB how about we agree that you actually read articles in their entirety before commenting on them? How about that? You wanna give that a try?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Printable View
Hey RB how about we agree that you actually read articles in their entirety before commenting on them? How about that? You wanna give that a try?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I did and that line stood out.
But seriously though the Home Office should basically just deport all men in the UK because people in this category include those with convictions for murder, child sexual offences, the supply of drugs and robbery. I hope you're first in line to volunteer for deportation.
Or perhaps--and I know this is a crazy idea--you should actually read and understand things instead of stopping your goddamn' brain at the first thing you read that stands out to in your Trumpian brain.
I did read all 3 links you posted but didn't quote anything from. Let me summarise:
- 12 years ago the last Labour government introduced a rule requiring a "good character" for those gaining citizenship.
- Some convicted criminals with convictions for murder, drug dealing, sexual offences against children, robbery etc are being denied citizenship on these grounds.
- Others recently fined within the last three years for breaking the law are facing consequences for their actions.
- Labour MPs are attacking the Tory government for how the rule Labour introduced is being implemented.
- A review into how the rule is implemented is underway.
Here are some other lines that obviously didn't stand out because TrumpBlade's brain stopped working:
AndQuote:
Hundreds of vulnerable children as young as 10, who have spent most of their lives in the UK, are having their applications for British citizenship [...]
Figures published by the Home Office after a freedom of information request by the Guardian show that, on average, one child a week has had their application rejected over the last five years – with campaigners estimating that as many as 400 have been denied citizenship [...]
In some cases, children who were born in the UK have been turned down on the basis of convictions for crimes as trivial as petty theft, with even offences that are punished with a caution or a fine considered serious enough to warrant their rejection.
Critics say the figures are evidence of the Home Office failing to meet its statutory responsibilities to promote a child’s welfare and making the “best interests” of the child a primary consideration in these applications. They criticised guidelines for failing to differentiate between young people who have grown up in the UK and want to register as British citizens and adult migrants looking to naturalise.
[...] young people should not be put in “a position where the secretary of state thinks or believes they can be removed to some obscure country where one of the parents or both parents were born [...]
“All the clients have been destitute or very poor. At least half are looked after children or have had some sort of social service intervention. All of them are black,” [...]
[...] her clients affected by the good character requirement were young people who had had “quite disruptive childhoods”, many of whom had been in the care of local authorities. [...]
Recent figures obtained through a freedom of information request show 35 applications were rejected in 2017, while 59 and 39 child applications were rejected in 2016 and 2015 respectively. There was a peak in the number of rejections in 2013, when 78 child applicants had their request to register as British citizens denied.
[...]“The figures of those registering and those being refused simply leaves out the number of children who are not seeking to apply to register because they are being advised or being made aware that a simple caution or fine will mean they’ll be treated as not of good character.”
The good character requirement was introduced in 2006 and applies to applicants aged 10 or over [...]
Under current guidelines, an applicant may be rejected if they have received a fine within the last three years. [...]
In 2012, the guidance was updated and young applicants were subject to the same guidance as adults. A 2017 review of the good character requirement by David Bolt, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, called on the Home Office to review the guidance and ensure it “makes explicit the scope for caseworkers to exercise discretion”. The government accepted the recommendations and noted: “Updated guidance will be published by the end of December [2017].” The Home Office is yet to publish this guidance.
In the meantime, children such as DB, a 16-year-old boy with special needs who was born and grew up in London, continue to struggle to gain citizenship. His guardian, SD, says he had been discouraged from applying once he was sent to the youth offending team (YOT) for 10 months in 2016. [...]
Ronan Toal, an immigration and asylum barrister at Garden Court Chambers, said the application of the good character requirement was not consistent with juvenile justice. “It seems wrong, I think, if you have a principle that applies to juvenile justice, which is that you facilitate the child’s reintegration into the community after the child is committed an offence, whereas in nationality law, you exclude the child if the child has committed an offence,” he said.
Barratt echoes Toal’s point, adding there was “a dissonance” between the youth offending system, which focuses on rehabilitation, and the guidance around the good character requirement. “It’s in a child’s best interest to have a sense of belonging to the country where they’ve lived since they were very little and for which its their home,” she added.
Quote:
Windrush citizens are supposed to be afforded the same rights as British citizens
refusals would also be issued to those who had applied for documentation from abroad but been found to be ineligible as they were not able to provide sufficient evidence that they were settled in the UK before 1 January 1973
legal experts told The Independent that the absence of independent legal advice and a proper appeal route to those refused made it impossible to know whether the decisions were fair or not.
"There are clearly going to be people refused not just citizenship but the right to stay as well,"
Now RB I know you want to reply again but I urge you to read my post before replying. Please read posts properly before replying. This is the absolute bare minimum requirement for an online discussion that I'm asking you to at least try to meet.
So we should dole out citizenship to those under-18s recently convicted of theft? Why?
These are criminals. The fact they are kids doesn't change that. If they are rehabilitated they can later apply for citizenship (petty convictions only count if they are within last three years) but if they are serial convicts they can't.
Here's a left field idea. If you're lucky enough to be a guest in another country treat that country and its laws with some respect, don't commit crimes and only then do you deserve citizenship.
You're a guest in a country in which you're born? Seriously Rand?
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You guys award citizenship at birth if you're born on American soil. We don't and nor do many other nations. My younger brother was born in Australia when I lived there. He's British, has no Australian citizenship and we (including him) remained guests of Australia until we left.
The soft bigotry of low expectations for native British chavs, who don't get as much as a slap on the wrist for similar crimes.
They're our citizens. They already have citizenship, even British murderers don't lose that so it isn't unreasonable to hold aspiring citizens to higher standards.
I am also quite frequently amazed at this: "I married a Brit 27 years ago and now I'm to be deported!" bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...n-for-27-years
What the actual fuck, Rand. This is NOT an isolated incident.
I agree I think that's disgusting, its absolutely disgraceful we're treating non-Europeans with this horrible bigotted system that needs a total overhaul.
Criminals like rapists and others who've had long sentences who aren't British have been deported. Not one of them from the Windrush generation.
If you're a guest in this country, don't rape people etc - its not hard. If I was a foreign national and had a long sentence then I'd expect to be deported too. Its bog standard international law that criminals can be sent back to their country of origin.
I recommend just reading the article first before responding.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I did. I also noticed who wrote it. Doesn't change what I wrote whatsoever.
You might want to educate yourself on some facts rather than falling for whatever hype "opinion" pieces match your prejudices.
Nothings changed from this post in 2018. Guests to our country shouldn't commit crimes and if they do they can be deported as per international law.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This is completely different to Windrush and only the ethnicity is the same. It is racist to compare this to Windrush.
Nice try you little amateur fascist, but unless you have evidence that every single one of the men deported are rapists and extremely violent criminals, I think it's fair to say you're full of shit. The reason I asked you to read the article first is because it—like most other articles on this subject—points out that several of the men being deported appear to only be guilty of less severe offenses, typically related to drugs, with a high likelihood of having been groomed by more hardened criminals. They have also grown up in the UK from childhood, and many have British children who will be deprived of a parent. Now, I get that your inner fascist gets a thrill out of the thought of righteously punishing darkies—and sticking it to black MPs—but there are legitimate concerns that the process that has led to deportations is judicially dubious, and that the punishment may be disproportionately severe—esp. if you consider the impact on families. I urge you to take your head out of your Little Englander ass and try to remember how decent human beings think about justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I didn't say every single one was a rapist and extremely violent criminal. I said they were all criminals like rapists etc who've been subject to long sentences and that's true. I do have evidence for that, the minimum jail term to be deported (as set by this law passed by the last Labour government) is 12 months. Anyone who is not convicted of a crime, or is convicted but got community service or a short sentence below 12 months is not deported. Also considering this law has been the same since the last Labour government that passed it I'm curious whether you complained about it at the time?
I don't care about race. I am happy to get serious criminals who are not citizens out of the country. I think its offensive and bigotted of you to suggest "darkies" are criminals, that's not true. In my opinion the vast, vast, vast majority of all races are good law abiding people and I'd like to see any evidence you have to the contrary.
This is the context for the current travesty that you, "Good German" that you are, are applauding thoughtlessly:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...iminal-offence
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8501076.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-sajid-javid
Wrongfully deported after a lifetime in Britain—enduring constant racist abuse but still building lives and establishing bonds of family and friendship—to die in a foreign country, far from your loved ones, stripped of all dignity. Because pathetic English Lewkowskis enjoy fapping to the suffering of brown people. That's what you want more of, as you slowly age into this new stage of decrepitude.
Idiot. I opposed vehemently the Windrush deportations. Just go back to Page 1 of this thread. :rolleyes:
This is not the same thing.
I recommend you read my post and the linked articles before replying. You say you "opposed" the Windrush deportations, but clearly you are not interested in learning from that mistake—much like your govt, that had to be forced to acknowledge that the wrongful deportations of Windrush individuals with modest criminal records was also wrong. Your failure to read is matched only by your ongoing moral failures.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I am interested in learning from the mistake, but that doesn't apply here. Criminals who have been sentenced to long sentences and exhausted their appeals are not the same as Windrush.
You are completely disinterested in learning from the Windrush scandal. The draft report strongly recommends ending these deportations, except possibly for the most severe offenses. One of the men being deported is a 23-y-o who's lived in the UK since he was 5, convicted of drug crime at age 17 after being groomed by a criminal gang, and served his sentence. To deport him six years later, for a nonviolent crime, is grossly disproportionate.
These are serious criminals who are being deported. The 17 year old is not being deported which was already determined previously but his case is still being used in arguments because despite being total bullshit its easier to argue that than the rapists, killers and class A drug dealers that make up the 17 who were deported in reality.
Instead of throwing stones, let me ask you a question. Is it acceptable to deport a convicted rapist who is not a citizen of your country and is a citizen of another?
Anyone know why we didn't deport Rolf Harris?
He's got British citizenship so can't be deported.
Ah, it's all over my Twitter feed and I couldn't work it out. So it's definite that none of the people we're deporting now are British citizens?
I'm quite ignorant about this, but one thing I don't understand is why they are being deported. They've all served their time and they could have been deported by the judge who sentenced them in the first place.
Does this now mean that anyone who isn't a British citizen who commits a crime will be a) sentenced by a judge and then b.) when they've served their sentenced will at some point in the future be deported?
The law doesn't permit us to deport British citizens.
We can strip British citizens of their citizenship if they are a deemed a danger to the country and it doesn't leave them stateless. As Rolf Harris is dual nationality Australian and British that could theoretically be possible I believe, but I don't know if we can do that while he's in the country (as opposed to eg the "Jihadi Bride" who left the country to go join ISIS) and I don't know if his crimes can amount to a threat to national security.
No anyone not a citizen who commits a crime won't automatically be deported and as far as I'm aware deportation isn't a matter for the judge at trial. They must be sentence to a minimum of a 12 month sentence by the judge to be eligible to deportation proceedings and those begin after that sentence. Deportation proceedings are separate from the trial for the original crime that got the 12+ month sentence.
So exactly why are these guys being deported? Wouldn't it make sense just to automatically deport any non British citizen at first strike?
Why sentence them, make them serve that sentence and then deport at an arbitrary time later?
I guess I'm questioning the rationale for this decision and consistency of approach.
Just because someone is a "serious criminal" doesn't mean that deportation - on top of the time they've already served - is a proportionate punishment. The govt. refuses to reveal how many of these men were convicted of crimes such as murder, rape, GBH etc vs. eg. possession with intent to distribute - because the govt. knows that these disparate categories of crime merit different kinds of punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You know very well that the primary reason why most of the men who were scheduled to be deported have not yet been shipped off to Jamaica is because of a last minute court order - vehemently opposed by the govt. - staying the deportation of detainees who could not reasonably have been expected to have gotten adequate legal assistance - not because the govt. saw the error of its ways. Similarly, the only reason Thompson's planned deportation has been stayed is because of a last-minute court order - the govt. had every intention of going through with the deportation prior to that order, and would have succeeded, had he not had access to legal assistance. He remains in detention, as of today, in a system we know to be extremely harmful for detainees' mental and physical health.Quote:
The 17 year old is not being deported which was already determined previously but his case is still being used in arguments because despite being total bullshit its easier to argue that than the rapists, killers and class A drug dealers that make up the 17 who were deported in reality.
If that convicted rapist is an adult who came to my country as a 5-y-o boy, and grew up here, and had no memory of - nor connections in - the country of his birth, my answer would be a firm no. That rapist is my country's responsibility; we have ostensibly accepted that responsibility for two decades. This holds even more strongly for people who have received long sentences for non-violent crimes.Quote:
Instead of throwing stones, let me ask you a question. Is it acceptable to deport a convicted rapist who is not a citizen of your country and is a citizen of another?
Automatic deportation is the law already. Under the Act passed by the Labour government in 2006 all foreign nationals sentenced to a prison sentence of 12 months or longer MUST be deported. However people retain the right to appeal due to concerns about human rights etc e.g. If facing torture. But the law makes deporting offenders the default.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
People aren't deported the day they're released and some abscond while out but deportation is the expectation of the law for all foreign criminals. That is the law.
The system seems odd. One chap served half of his 15 month sentence in 2015. He's now being deported five years later.
Yes I agree, I don't know the details why. Post-Windrush scandal a lot of deportations got delayed. The judicial process and appeals etc can take some time too.